Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS versus THE STATE

Section 302/324/148/149/337A (ii) / 337F (ii) The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Section 7 alleges a trial court against the accused under the age of 18, Claimed under age 18 under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance that the juvenile filed a separate case, the 2000 trial court, while accepting the defendant's plea, directed the Department HO to use the jury. The Justice System should submit a separate challan against the accused under the ordinance, the 2000 minority accused was produced by the relevant union council's birth certificate. And while the school leaving certificate had proven that she was less than 18 years old at the time, the complainant, who alleged that the accused was over 18, had claimed that the accused's age was determined. In order to perform the medical examination of the accused is required which has been considered in accordance with Section 7. This discussion of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 Complainant, was overturned on the basis that a valid berth certificate, which is legally listed in the Union Council's Birth Register. All other methods of proof are also preferred to determine a person's age. A person's confirmatory examination can only give an indication of his age, but there can be no conclusive evidence and he says that exercise should be resorted to only when exercise was performed. Any other evidence that the berth certificate and the school leaving certificate are evidence of the defendant being under 18 years of age, the evidence presented was genuine and the complainant failed to produce a document to prove that Because the accused is over 18, the trial court finds the accused ask a advocate free from Hub Inds Estate lawyer